Short answer. Yes, and a serious one. Article 166 of the Revised Penal Code punishes the forging or falsification of treasury or bank notes and other obligations payable to bearer, as well as importing and uttering such forged notes. Faking the currency of the Philippines carries the heaviest penalty in the article.
What the law says
The forging or falsification of treasury or bank notes or certificates or other obligations and securities payable to bearer and the importation and uttering in connivance with forgers or importers of such false or forced obligation or notes shall be punished as follows
Revised Penal Code, Article 166 — Forging Notes Payable To Bearer. Read the full provision →
Three distinct acts are punished
Article 166 does not punish only the person who prints fake notes. It reaches forging or falsification of treasury or bank notes and other obligations payable to bearer, and it also reaches importation of such false notes and their uttering — that is, passing or circulating them — when done in connivance with forgers or importers. So making the counterfeit, bringing it into the country, and knowingly putting it into circulation with the forgers or importers are all covered. The law targets the whole chain of counterfeiting, not just the moment of manufacture, because fake currency causes harm only once it moves, and those who move it in league with the makers are treated as part of the offence.
The penalty depends on what was faked
The article grades the punishment by the kind of instrument counterfeited. The gravest case is a forged obligation or security of the Philippines — the country's own notes and instruments — which the article defines broadly to include Philippine notes, treasury notes, bonds, certificates of indebtedness, national bank notes, and other representatives of value issued under law. Forging these carries reclusion temporal in its minimum period plus a fine. Circulating notes of authorized local banks, documents issued by a foreign government, and notes of a foreign bank each carry their own, generally lower, penalties. The clear pattern is that the more directly the forgery attacks the nation's own money and credit, the heavier the sentence.
A note on the peso figures
The fines printed in Article 166 — such as a fine not exceeding two million pesos for forging an obligation or security of the Philippines — are the amounts set by Republic Act No. 10951 (2017), which revised the fines and property values throughout the Revised Penal Code. This matters because many older copies of the Code, including printed reviewers and free websites, still carry the original 1930 amounts, which are far lower. If you find a different peso figure for this offence elsewhere, it may simply be reproducing the pre-2017 text. Always check which version of the Code a source is giving you before relying on any monetary amount in it.
What this article does not settle
Article 166 defines the offence and its penalties, but several things fall outside it. It does not cover every currency-related act — for example, coins, and separate conduct such as merely possessing counterfeit notes or using them without connivance with the forgers, are dealt with under neighbouring provisions of the Code. Whether a particular person is a forger, an importer, or an utterer in connivance is a fact-heavy question that determines liability. Because the penalties are severe and the exact charge depends on the role played and the instrument involved, anyone facing an accusation touching counterfeit currency should obtain individual legal advice rather than rely on general information.